First a trickle....Now a flood

[Goddess]

This week, the House Oversight Committee released its long-awaited report on the government’s misuse of psychological manipulation during the pandemic. It’s ugly.

We_Can_Do_This_NIH_PR_Campaign_Report_PUBLIC_82616d81eb.pdf

 

In fall 2020, the bureaucratic behemoth that is HHS deployed its vast army of overpaid health bureaucrats and outsourced critical public health communications to a “full-service behavior-change research” firm.

Not a science firm. Not a health firm. A “behavior-change research” firm. The firm’s name is the Fors Marsh Group. 

As the report’s introduction explains, for its “behavior change” services, HHS ultimately paid FMG over nine hundred million US dollars. Stop and think about that for a second. The U.S. government paid nearly a billion dollars to one company to manipulate citizens into becoming more compliant to the government.

We can quibble about the ethics of psychological manipulation and “nudging” and stuff, but those decisions were made during a pandemic, amidst a public health emergency, when lives were at stake. The important thing is their hearts were in the right place. Right? 🙄

What advanced techniques did FMG use to make the American public more compliant? What cutting-edge science did FORS bring to the HHS table, to earn their billion-dollar fee? Was it a blend of innovative AI and pioneering psychology?

Nope. They just lied.

They lied, and they exaggerated stuff, to terrify people. Their lies were so bloody awful and so preposterous that nobody would have ever listened to them — except that they put the full weight of the US government behind their lies and fearmongering to make the whole grotesque scheme work.  In doing so, they consumed every drop of historic trust earned by previous generations of hard-working public servants.

But … did they really lie? Yes. They lied. They lied like rugs. They lied tons of times. Lies like promising that vaccination would stop transmission of the virus dead in its tracks. That particular lie came from the CDC itself and sailed straight into the FMG’s advertising scripts:

FMG’s plan wasn’t innovative. It wasn’t cutting edge. A child could have done it. They’re m0r0ns. They just lied, and they leaned on Americans’ trust in government to sell their lies. And the bureaucrats running the health agencies and the country’s liberal health professionals all compliantly went right along with it all, facilitating the lies at every step.

Lies are unethical and Liars are bad people. Even, or especially, public health liars. FMG’s whole stupid program was unethical to the core.

It was also overhyped nonsense. For example, FMG’s initial proposal to HHS was founded on a single “theory” they called the “Health Belief Model.” Here’s how they dressed their so-called Health Belief Model up in fancy, academic-sounding language:

That’s not innovative, creative, cutting-edge, or even smart. All that Model says is, if you scare people by saying they’ll die, and don’t give them time to think, they’re likely to do whatever you say, especially if they already trust the person telling them what to do:

Of course, afterwards, once they figure out they’ve been had, people won’t trust the “influencers, celebrities, and sports figures” anymore, but who cares? FMG will already be rich by then.

In other words, the plan was to coerce or bribe top government officials, doctors, pastors, priests, social media stars, bloggers, vloggers, Hollywood celebrities, singers, football players, and tennis stars into lying for them. The House report included the scripts FMG prepared for actors who pretended to be covid victims.

It was all completely fake and completely outrageous.

Worse, it’s not just the billion dollars FMG got. The real cost includes Americans’ (and by extension, Canadians') lost trust in government. And the lost trust in public health. The lost trust in vaccines. The lost trust in experts. The spiked anxiety rates from the fear campaigns. The broken brains of germaphobes and medical fetishists. The cost to the children in lost educational attainment, depression, and who knows what kinds of future psychosis.

(We could continue, adding vaccine injuries, jobs lost to mandates, closed businesses, destroyed economies, inflation, and so on.)

But the important thing is FMG’s owners got paid. And they were paid well. Very well. They are now set to retire on generational wealth earned from tax dollars, all wielded as psychological weapons against citizens.

This House report was a great start toward accountability. Having documents like this is important, because they can be cited as official findings. A court is much more likely to seriously consider something from a House Oversight Report than something some lawyer says.

We’re getting there.

[User]

12 hours ago, Goddess said:

Pretty much everyone is at more risk driving to work every day than dying of covid.

Simply not true. 

That risk has changed since the pandemic first began, but far more people were dying in Canada from COVID than from car crashes on any average year. 

That risk has also been greatly mitigated BECAUSE many of those people in high risk categories are vaccinated. 

[eyeball]

On 10/28/2024 at 7:06 PM, Goddess said:

...psychological manipulation...

Ah the psyop dudes... 

On 10/28/2024 at 7:06 PM, Goddess said:

They just lied, and they leaned on Americans’ trust in government to sell their lies.

What trust in government? You mention this public trust several times in your post. It seems you're the one leaning on it here to underscore some tragic loss of innocence and victimhood. It wasn't a loss at all you people have been willfully throwing it away for years.  Your half of the population had been lighting itself up with conspiracy gas for 20 years before COVID ever showed up.

If I've said it once I've said it a hundred times stupidity was always COVID's favourite vector.

On 10/28/2024 at 7:06 PM, Goddess said:

The U.S. government paid nearly a billion dollars to one company to manipulate citizens into becoming more compliant to the government.

They wasted their money alright.  Maybe next time they can just put vaccine on our water or in the chem-tankers flying overhead or something.

[WestCanMan]

On 10/29/2024 at 6:01 AM, User said:

Simply not true. 

That risk has changed since the pandemic first began, but far more people were dying in Canada from COVID than from car crashes on any average year. 

That risk has also been greatly mitigated BECAUSE many of those people in high risk categories are vaccinated. 

What she said was not inaccurate, you just misquoted her and gave a completely different stat.

• "Pretty much everyone is at more risk driving to work every day than dying of covid."

From Jan 2020 through Dec 10 2021 only 800 Canadians under 50 years old died from covid. That's 400 per year. 

1. Canada has an estimated 2,800–2,900 deaths from more than 160,000 road collisions per year. ( https://housegrail.com/car-accident-statistics-canada/ )

Even if only 50% of our population was under 50, we'd expect about 1,450 deaths per year in that group, or nearly 3,000 in 2 years. Not 800.

What percent of car fatalities happen on the way to and from work? I dunno. But if you look at people aged 18-30, there were less than 100 covid deaths in 2020 and 2021 combined. It would be a banner year if only 50 Canadians between 18 and 30 died in car crashes.   

Edited January 27 by WestCanMan

[User]

18 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

From Jan 2020 through Dec 10 2021 only 800 Canadians under 50 years old died from covid. That's 400 per year. 

Wow, you drug this thread back up to be this blatantly dishonest?

We were not talking about only Canadians that died under the age of 50 or only those specifically from Jan 2020 through Dec 10 2021. 

Notice there, how you have to play these dishonest games?

 

[WestCanMan]

On 1/27/2025 at 12:05 PM, User said:

Wow, you drug this thread back up to be this blatantly dishonest?

We were not talking about only Canadians that died under the age of 50 or only those specifically from Jan 2020 through Dec 10 2021. 

Notice there, how you have to play these dishonest games?

I don't know how to make this any easier for you...

People under 50 almost never died of covid. Their chance was zero percent.

People under 50 die of car accidents all the time. 

It's is 100% true that everyone between the age of 18 and 40 was at far more risk of dying on their way to work than they were of dying from covid. 

Sure, 80 yr olds were at greater risk of dying from covid than driving to/from work, but none of them drive to work. 

You'd be correct to say that unhealthy 60-75 yr olds actually were at greater risk of dying from covid than from driving to work, but it wasn't really worth coming into this thread to be an a-hole about it. 

[WestCanMan]

@Goddess

An opinion article published in the NYT went scorched-earth on wetmarket theory liars and pimps: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/16/opinion/covid-pandemic-lab-leak.html

No doubt the only reason this article could be printed in the Times is that there's a claim in it that the Times was lied to, so in essence this article is just a bit of hand-washing. (Actually, one reporter at the Times was allegedly lied to, but in any event, that one lie became their hill to die on and they ignored all other evidence for 5 years 😂:

• The first was a March 2020 paper in the journal Nature Medicine, which was written by five prominent scientists and declared that no “laboratory-based scenario” for the pandemic virus was plausible. But we later learned through congressional subpoenas of their Slack conversations that while the scientists publicly said the scenario was implausible, privately many of its authors considered the scenario to be not just plausible but likely. One of the authors of that paper, the evolutionary biologist Kristian Andersen, wrote in the Slack messages, “The lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.”

  Spooked, the authors reached out for advice to Jeremy Farrar, now the chief scientist at the World Health Organization. In his book, Farrar reveals he acquired a burner phone and arranged meetings for them with high-ranking officials, including Francis Collins, then the director of the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Anthony Fauci. Documents obtained through public records requests by the nonprofit U.S. Right to Know show that the scientists ultimately decided to move ahead with a paper on the topic.

  Operating behind the scenes, Farrar reviewed their draft and suggested to the authors that they rule out the lab leak even more directly. They complied. Andersen later testified to Congress that he had simply become convinced that a lab leak, while theoretically possible, was not plausible. Later chat logs obtained by Congress show the paper’s lead authors discussing how to mislead Donald G. McNeil Jr., who was reporting on the pandemic’s origin for The Times, so as to throw him off track about the plausibility of a lab leak.

😇 We were lied to! 😇

😂

I've been critical of NYT in the past, it's 100% certain that they're liars and scum, but if they wanna come clean I'll give them their shot at it.

• The second influential publication to dismiss the possibility of a lab leak was a letter published in early 2020 in The Lancet. The letter, which described the idea as a conspiracy theory, appeared to be the work of a group of independent scientists. It was anything but. Thanks to public document requests by U.S. Right to Know, the public later learned that behind the scenes, Peter Daszak, EcoHealth’s president, had drafted and circulated the letter while strategizing on how to hide his tracks and telling the signatories that it “will not be identifiable as coming from any one organization or person.” The Lancet later published an addendum disclosing Daszak’s conflict of interest as a collaborator of the Wuhan lab, but the journal did not retract the letter.

  And they had assistance. Thanks to more public records requests and congressional subpoenas, the public learned that David Morens, a senior scientific adviser to Fauci at the National Institutes of Health, wrote to Daszak that he had learned how to make “emails disappear,” especially emails about pandemic origins. “We’re all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns, and if we did we wouldn’t put them in emails and if we found them we’d delete them,” he wrote.

The Lancet 😂. You know it's sad when even the NYT can throw shade at you.

 

Here's the best part:

• We have since learned, however, that to promote the appearance of consensus, some officials and scientists hid or understated crucial facts, misled at least one reporter, orchestrated campaigns of supposedly independent voices and even compared notes about how to hide their communications in order to keep the public from hearing the whole story.

Does that sound a lot like "science lied"? Yeah it does. It means exactly that.

The cultist turds here that were constantly clinging to "science says" for 3 years, regardless of how blatantly stupid science was, will still get sucked in the next time because that's just what they do. 

 

 

 

I guess that at some point, these newspapers and TV shows that were lying to us for years had to make some form of attempt to get on the right side of history, but this "one of our reporters was lied to" BS is an eon late and a trillion dollars short. 

 

 

Did you notice that the "Search" feature here is gone? 

It has always been hard to track down interesting threads and posts here, due to the insane amount of drivel coming from leftard trolls, but without the search feature, everything that we wrote about covid here is gone. 

[Goddess]

Did the vaxxines really save lives and end the pandemic?

 

There is meager scientific evidence that vaxxines reduced c0v1d infections or deaths. To the contrary, there is abundance evidence that mass vaccination had only brief efficacy against c0v1d, including the now undeniable fact, summarized in the February issue of the European Journal of Epidemiology that "Countries with a higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COV-19 cases per 1 million people."

 

Consistent with this now global problem, US deaths in 2022 were - after mass vaxxing - higher than they were in 2020, prior to vaxxing. Although the average death from c0v1d early in the pandemic was 82 (with 4 comorbidities), Aegon Insurance reported in 2021 a rise of 40% in deaths for people under 65, "the highest percentage in any quarter since the pandemic began."

 

Because this truth has not been reported by corporate media, it's understandable that you might find it surprising or unbelievable. Nonetheless, it is true. And it's a global problem that is continuing. In addition to the charts below, S. Korea, Australia, Canada and the US all report similar statistics.

 

The tendency of COV vaxxines to INCREASE illness and mortality is a predictable outcome of the well-documented phenomenon of vaccine induced "pathogenic priming". 

 

Pfizer’s own data, which they attempted to keep from the public for 75 years, suggests that for every COVID death that the vaccine averts, it will, over time, kill four additional people from cardiac arrest.

 

This means that vaccinated individuals then become more likely to suffer from COVID infections, hospitalizations, and deaths than unvaccinated individuals.  Which is exactly what the world's top epidemiologists, vaccinologists and immunologists were trying to warn about, but **THIS** guy shut them down:

Anthony Fauci - June 9, 2021:

"Attacks on me, are quite frankly, attacks on science. So if you are trying to get at me.....you are really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you are attacking science."

 

It should have troubled people that the US's leading public health technocrat would utter such a narcissistic and scientifically absurd statement.

 

Compare that statement to the new NIH director, Dr. Jay Battacharya: "Science should be an engine for knowledge and freedom, not something that stands on top of society and says 'You must do this, or else!'"

 

[User]

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I don't know how to make this any easier for you...

Once again... you drag this thread up and waste my time with more dishonesty. 

The comment that started this was:

"Pretty much everyone is at more risk driving to work every day than dying of covid."

As I first pointed out, that simply is not true. 

You tried to play games and selectively create the bounds for where that was true... but again, the comment was "pretty much everyone"
 

[Goddess]

From Mark Oshinkie's substack today:

GET VAXXED, DIE ANYWAY

During early Coronamania, many stated a strong, but seemingly insincere, desire to “save grandma.” Yet, several weeks before lockdowns began, college students were saying “OK, Boomer” to show disdain for those old and in the way, i.e., those over 50 who may have expressed some non-PC perspective. I don’t watch or read much news. I first heard about “the Coronavirus” in the first week of March, 2020, when a student who worked for me spoke laughingly of a new microbe that her generation had dubbed “The Boomer Remover.”

Within a week, the government and media had built a plainly bogus but widely accepted—including by most college students and graduates—narrative that some “novel” virus threatened everyone. Most were conned into hiding from others so as to avoid being “super-spreaders” who might bring The Virus home to grandma/pa; even though very few American grandmas/pas shared living quarters with those under 50.

In general, the Scamdemic has been based on convincing a gullible, mathematically illiterate, illogical, fearful, groupthinking public that exceptions were the norm. It turns out that this task was easy.

Read More:

GET VAXXED, DIE ANYWAY - by Mark Oshinskie

[Goddess]

Ten days ago, ANOTHER peer-reviewed jab study quietly published in the Journal of Infection titled,

"Post-vaccination IgG4 and IgG2 class switch associates with increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infections"

 Corporate media ignored it, unsurprisingly. But what was perhaps most impressive was that it was published at all.

The study’s conclusions were bleak. The Spanish team found that repeated covid mRNA shots —especially the third jab and beyond— shift injectees’ antibodies toward a usually rare “non-fighter” type of antibidy called IgG4. IgG4 is the immune system’s version of a conflict-avoiding diplomat. Instead of gearing up to attack invaders, the body treats the virus like it’s a persistent uninvited houseguest: inconvenient, maybe even annoying, but not worth an unpleasant confrontation.

The study unsurprisingly showed that the more this IgG4 antibody “class switching” happened, the more often people got reinfected. Meaning, more shots, more sickness. Exactly the opposite of what the experts promised.

Even worse, the results showed that the IgG4 increase lasted for years after repeated mRNA doses. The elevated IgG4 (and IgG2) levels stabilized above normal baseline levels and stayed that way for the rest of the study period— nearly three years. The researchers saw no sign of those levels returning to pre-booster norms.

Although they never came out and said it, the data the team collected suggested this could be a long-lasting, possibly chronic immune shift. And it’s not a shift for the better.

This kind of class-switching effect is called “immune tolerance.” It’s typically seen in cases of chronic allergies, long-term parasitic infections, and rare auto-immune disorders. In other words, victims’ immune systems get trained to chill out even though the virus keeps crashing the party and hogging the DJ stand.

Defenders continue to argue the shots may not “work” per se, but they reduce your chance of serious illness per infection. That tortured argument misses the forest for the viral trees.

They claim the shots reduce severity of covid cases. But even if you believe that, if each shot makes people catch covid more often, their total cumulative risk of a severe case may actually go up. A -10% drop in severity risk is worse than meaningless if you’re getting infected three times as often.

This study reinforces early “conspiracy theories” that successive waves of covid would get increasingly deadly to people who’ve had lots of shots. It hasn’t happened quite so quickly as theorized by the heterodox researchers, but this study’s results add to evidence of a slowly unfolding disaster version of the same dark prediction.

Finally, since it was out of the study’s scope, the researchers did not consider whether chronically elevated IgG4 levels could suppress immune responses to other things besides covid, like infections, cancer, parasites, or any number of foreign invaders. The problem though is that elevated IgG4 is immunologically anti-inflammatory. It’s like issuing a permanent, body-wide “stand down” order to your immune system—the opposite of staying on high alert.

Rather, it’s on low alert. Like Jeffrey Epstein’s guards snoozing during his mur, I mean suicide.

Here’s the nub: Jab-takers were sold a medical product under the false assurance of zero long-term risk— an assurance that was always biologically impossible to make. It was the complete collapse of informed consent. Public health authorities assured us there were no meaningful long-term risk— not because they had any data to prove that, but because they had no long-term data at all, the world’s most fraudulent blank check on an empty bank account.

The public health mo-rons played the most dangerous shell game in human history, and we still don’t know the full scope.

Well, we are where we are. Let’s look at the half-tumbler of whiskey still in the cocktail glass.

It is fair to assume that every single study finding something positive about the jabs has been published and highlighted by the media. Nothing pro-jab is missing. But it is also fair to assume that many studies finding problems were sneered at by editors, slow-rolled, and denied effective peer review. So there is almost certainly a back inventory of unpublished work.

Worse, the funding behemoth drowned researchers in green-lighted mRNA grants— but only for pro-jab studies. So, research on mRNA problems has likewise been drastically underfunded.

Both variables —censorship and funding— are changing for the better. Kennedy is laying off scads of narrative enforcers at the CDC and other captured health agencies. HHS is pulling the plug on junk studies designed to prop up fear campaigns and pharma-friendly messaging. The money is drying up.

The academic playing field is finally, belatedly, leveling out.

And when it does, we will witness an unprecedented avalanche of pent-up scholarship— studies that were previously unfundable, unpublishable, or simply too dangerous to write. Every paper like this Spanish one is another dagger in public health’s waning credibility. And it can’t happen fast enough.

Because if I’m right, we’re headed toward a reckoning. 

[eyeball]

24 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Because if I’m right, we’re headed toward a reckoning. 

They'll have a shot for that in no time.

[herbie]

17 hours ago, Goddess said:

Journal of Infection

sound like the title of a satirical magazine. Does it recommend eating roadkill to cure brainworms too?

[Goddess]

19 hours ago, herbie said:

sound like the title of a satirical magazine. Does it recommend eating roadkill to cure brainworms too?

This is just the latest study on the IgG4 class switch.  There's about 7 or 8 of them now.  I've posted on the IgG4 switch with the other studies here, in the past.

I judge studies by their methods used to reach conclusions and whether those studies are reproducible, not by where they're published.

For instance, The Lancet, the largest medical studies publisher, still has not removed the Proximal Origins paper from their website, even though it's been long since debunked.  Maybe they will soon, they've recently removed many of the junk science papers used to promote the jabs.

19 hours ago, herbie said:

sound like the title of a satirical magazine. Does it recommend eating roadkill to cure brainworms too?

If you want to discuss the studies here, I'm down for that. Otherwise, your comment just illustrates your profound ignorance.

[Goddess]

RE:  the SV40 promoter found in the jabs (simian virus 40)

Harvey Shein and John Enders were top scientists in the 1960's. Look at this paper they wrote about SV40 Transformation (cancer causing) in human kidney cells. But don't worry about SV40.  It's nothing to worry about and probably like fairy dust making you stronger.

TRANSFORMATION INDUCED BY SIMIAN VIRUS 40 IN HUMAN RENAL CELL CULTURES, II. CELL-VIRUS RELATIONSHIPS - PMC

The paper is older, so here's some screenshots of pertinent parts and a meme visual:

 

 

[Goddess]

For a deep dive into the topic of foreign DNA in the mRNA jabs, but in easier to understand layman's terms, there's this paper:

Foreign DNA in the mRNA Vaccine – Dig Deeply

[herbie]

Oh Jeez get back under your rock with your fellow anti-vax nutcases. You'll make handy bio-weapons exempt from any Armaments Conventions.

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Oh Jeez get back under your rock with your fellow anti-vax nutcases. You'll make handy bio-weapons exempt from any Armaments Conventions.

Is someone holding a gun to your head forcing you to click on this thread?

Reply with squid emoji if you need help.  🦑

[CdnFox]

45 minutes ago, Goddess said:

 

Reply with squid emoji if you need help.  🦑

I mean if you do we're still not going to help but we could all use the laugh  

[User]

On 3/28/2025 at 9:16 PM, Goddess said:

Because if I’m right, we’re headed toward a reckoning. 

Well, good thing you are not right. 

[Goddess]

33 minutes ago, User said:

Well, good thing you are not right. 

So you think the IgG4 switch that's been documented and reproduced in studies from all over the world is:

a) Not really happening.

OR

b) A good thing.

Alright then. ☺️

[User]

11 hours ago, Goddess said:

So you think the IgG4 switch that's been documented and reproduced in studies from all over the world is:

a) Not really happening.

OR

b) A good thing.

Alright then. ☺️

No, I think your page-long rambling fear-mongering was garbage. 

I read the study.